The purpose of the current research was to examine the degree of stress reported by families with a school-aged special needs child and to determine whether stress level relationships exist as a function of school approach or severity of disability. An objective of this research was to investigate the possibility that educational programs, particularly those associated with public school system, placed additional stress on families with children with special needs. An objective of the study was to investigate the extent to which parents experienced increased stress levels associated with educating a child with special needs and whether schooling method (homeschooling versus public school) and the severity of the child’s disability predicted increased parental stress levels.
Participants in the research study completed the self-administered questionnaire, FICD-20, developed by Trute et al. (2007); the CPI created by Crouse (2011) to
determine the severity of the child’s disability; and the ESS, which includes 15 additional questions created to reveal extent of increased parental stress caused by schooling a special needs child. A regression analysis was used to demonstrate whether parents’ emotional stress can be predicted by two predictor variables: type of schooling approach (public special education programs or homeschooling) and the severity of the child’s disability. This chapter will provide information on the research design and approach, setting and sample, instruments, and materials used in the current investigation. A review
of the procedures for data collection and analysis is provided as is a discussion of the ethical considerations implemented to protect participants’ rights. The chapter concludes with a summary.
Research Design and Rationale
A quantitative approach and ex post facto research design was used for the current investigation. The methodology and design was considered appropriate as the purpose of this study was to evaluate quantitative score data with nonmanipulated independent variables in order to test specific hypotheses using statistical analysis.
Research Approach
A quantitative research method was used for the current research. The
quantitative research method was appropriate when examining known variables and when examining the statistical relationship or differences between quantitative variables
(Creswell, 2003). In the current investigation, specific research questions concerning the relationship among the quantifiable variables of schooling approach, severity of
disability, and parental stress was evaluated. Quantitative research was also used to collect and analyze the numeric data.
Quantitative research was considered appropriate for the current study as the purpose of the study was to understand and describe the relationship of schooling approach and severity of disability on the variable of parents’ emotional stress, as numerically defined. Quantitative methodology was also appropriate to explain how the variables influenced the questions in the research (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2006). In the current investigation, the influence of two selected independent variables, educational
approach and severity of disability on the quantitative dependent variables of parental emotional stress, were evaluated statistically by using regression analysis. A regression analysis was allowed for the determination of the influence of schooling approach and disability severity on parent emotional stress.
Research Design
The ex post facto research design was appropriate for investigating the comparisons of nonmanipulated independent variables (Heppner, Kivlighan, & Wampold, 2008). These designs were considered the most appropriate for the current research as the two independent variables for investigation, educational approach, and severity of disability, were selected variables and could not be manipulated. Therefore, a true experiment examining the impact of these variables was not possible, and the ex post facto design was considered the next highest in internal validity. Although causality cannot be determined in an ex post facto design, this design has the highest possible internal validity given the nature of these independent variables.
This design also allowed for statistical regression analyses. This analysis provided more information than a descriptive or correlation design as significant predictive relationships between the independent variables of schooling approach and severity of disability on the dependent variable of parental emotional stress can be identified. Given that there is a lack of research on this topic, this information was a valuable addition to the literature.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Two research questions guided the current investigation. Although both questions focused on parental stress, one question was related to general parental stress associated with raising a child with a disability and the other question was related to parental stress exacerbated specifically by schooling.
Research Question 1. Can the degree of parent’s emotional stress, as measured by the ESS, be predicted by the severity the child’s disability or the choice of schooling (public school special education program or homeschooling)?
Ho1. The parent’s stress, as measured by scores on the ESS, cannot be
significantly predicted by the severity of the child’s disability and choice of schooling. Ha1. The parent’s stress, as measured by scores on the ESS, can be significantly predicted by the severity of the child’s disability and choice of schooling.
Research Question 2. Can the degree of parent’s emotional stress, as measured by the FICD-20, be predicted by the severity the child’s disability or the choice of schooling (public school special education program or homeschooling)?
Ho2. The parent’s stress, as measured by scores on the FICD-20, cannot be significantly predicted by the severity of the child’s disability and choice of schooling.
Ha2. The parent’s stress, as measured by scores on the FICD-20, can be
Methodology Population, Sample, and Sampling Procedures
Data were collected from parents of children with special needs / learning disabilities who were homeschooled or who were attending a public education special needs educational program. Parents of school-aged children, ranging in age from 5 to 18 years old, were invited to participate. The children of the selected parents had already been receiving special education services from their school district or using a special education curriculum for homeschooling. In order to examine the possible differences in parental strain and family demands, all parents selected for this study were the primary caretakers of the children with disabilities.
Only children with an already established disability were invited to participate. All families had at least one additional typically developed child (in addition to their disabled child) if invited to participate. The homeschooling and public education families were recruited in western New York, online parental support organizations run by Amy Dunaway, and Walden’s online participant pool. The sample size for this project was 70 participants (33 parents of homeschooled children and 37 parents of public
special education children). The size of the sample was determined by using a multiple regression formula for behavioral statistics (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2009) in order to achieve an alpha of p < .05 and a power of 80% or .8.
Instrumentation
In this research study, I used a self-administered questionnaire presented as one document. In total, participants were asked to respond to 92 questions.
The Family Impact of Childhood Disability Scale
The FICD-20 (see Appendix A) was designed to assess the impact of raising a child with a disability as rated by a parent (Trute et al., 2007). Permission to use the instrument was obtained (see Appendix B). The scale has a positive and negative
subscale. The subscales can be combined to yield a total score that can predict long-term parenting stress. The questionnaire includes 20 positive and negative statements (10 positive and 10 negative), which parents evaluate on a 4-point Likert scale (Trute et al., 2007). The Likert scale is scored 1 (not at all), 2 (mild degree), 3 (moderate degree), and 4 (substantial degree). The scores for the 20 items (10 positive and 10 negative) were totaled for the combined impact score. The scores on the instrument can range from 20 (indicating low stress levels) through 80 (indicating high stress levels). An example of an FICD-20 positive statement is “the experience has brought us closer together,” and an example of a negative statement is “there has been unwelcomed disruption to ‘normal’ family routines.”
The FICD-20 questionnaire has already established high reliability and validity as an assessment tool for psychological intervention. An internal consistency reliability alpha of .71 for the positive subscale and .88 for the negative subscale has been reported (Trute et al., 2007). It is best utilized early in the intervention process as a tool to identify the effects experienced by parents with a child who has been diagnosed with a
developmental disability or chronic illness. As a clinical assessment tool, it can provide practitioners with a better understanding of parental stress levels. The results from the
instrument can also provide information on how parental beliefs may interfere with parental or family adjustments in the future (Trute et al., 2007).
Educational Stress Survey
The ESS was developed to assess the level of stress a parent perceives from the special educational services required of his/her child (see Appendix C). The ESS was created as a survey containing 15 items, which were coded using the response scale 0 (strongly agree), 1 (agree), 2 (disagree), and 3 (strongly disagree). There were nine items that were reverse coded so that a higher score denoted lowered perceived parent stress of the special educational system required for his or her child.
In order to determine the psychometric adequacy of the ESS, the survey was pilot tested with 13 parents with a child receiving special educational services. Results from these 13 pilot study participants provided psychometric information of the ESS. First, the inter item reliability of the ESS was computed. With all 15 items, the Cronbach’s alpha for the ESS was an acceptable α = .75. However, when the item “The relationships my child has with his/her siblings are nurturing and supportive and are not strained because of the additional educational pressures,”i was removed, the Cronbach’s alpha was a much stronger α = .90. As such, the total ESS was computed from the remaining 14 items.
The total ESS was calculated from the 14 items; the total score was the sum of items. A higher score denoted lowered levels of perceived parent stress with the special educational services required of their child. Descriptive statistics were conducted on the total ESS (see Table 2). The mean ESS score was M = 27.08 (SD = 8.41), and ESS scores ranged from 10.00 to 39.00. Participant scores on the ESS were distributed
normally. The normal distribution of scale scores was validated by the skewness value of −0.46 (skewness value of 1.00 or higher indicates skewness) and the kurtosis value of −0.15 (a kurtosis value of 2.00 or higher indicates kurtosis). A Kolmogorov-Smirnov Ζ test provided confirmation of normal distribution of ESS scale scores, z (13) = 0.14, p = .20. The histogram of the ESS scores with a normal curve is presented in Table 2. Cognitive Processing Inventory
The CPI (see Appendix D) was used to assess academic areas of difficulty and severity of a learning disability. Permission to use the instrument can be found in Appendix E. The CPI was created by Crouse (2011), a certified school psychologist, in order to determine deficient academic areas typically encountered by students with learning disabilities. The questionnaire contains 50 questions rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The Likert scale is scored 1 (obvious difficulty), 2 (apparent weakness), 3 (average or uncertain), 4 (not a problem), and 5 (obvious strength). Scores on the Likert scales were totaled; the highest score possible is 250 and the lowest score possible is 50. The questionnaire aims to assess processing skills and learning styles and to differentiate the different learning disabilities to identify areas of difficulty as a way of evaluating the severity of the child’s disability (Crouse, 2011).
A split-half method was used to evaluate the internal consistency and overall reliability of the CPI. All items and subscales were randomly separated into two analogous groups and the split-half correlations were collected from the normative sample of 4,212 cases: 3.1 (women) and 3.2 (men). The correlations ranged from .90 to .98, which demonstrated that the CPI had very strong internal consistency (Crouse,
2011). The initial item selection and categorization resulted from published research findings related to emotional/behavioral development (Crouse, 2011). It also included Crouse’s direct observations and data obtained through interviews conducted with parent and teacher. Factor analysis was used on the original item selection to ensure that each item was weighting on the specific emotional or behavioral factor being evaluated (Crouse, 2010).
Construct validity was obtained through correlational studies comparing internal and external t test scores derived from the CPI with scores obtained from the same participants using the Behavior Assessment System for Children (Crouse, 2011).
Overall, these reliability and validity studies provide very strong support for the CPI as a screening and assessment instrument for emotional and behavioral disorders.
Demographic Survey
A demographic survey was created to analyze and gather relevant information from parents that participated in the study (see Appendix F). This information was then used to further analyze the participants and their special educational needs.
Operationalization of Constructs Dependent/Criterion Variables
The two dependent or criterion variables used in the study measured parental emotional stress. Parental emotional stress was measured with the FDIC-20 and the ESS, and both instruments yield continuous score variables. Information on how the scores were derived is presented later in this chapter.
The FDIC-20 is a published instrument with established validity and reliability estimates. The purpose of the assessment was to determine a parent’s perceived impact of raising a child with a disability. The FDIC-20 was often used early in the intervention process and had been deemed a useful tool for practitioners. Although the inclusion of data on how educational approach and disability severity parental impact of overall stress was important, the FDIC-20 did not require the consideration of school- or education- related stressors parents had experienced. The purpose of the current investigation was to determine whether educational approaches contributed to parental stress, and thus, an additional assessment of perceived family stress exacerbated by schooling a child with a disability was deemed necessary. Because there was currently no published instrument on perceived stress level exacerbated by schooling a child with a disability, I developed such an assessment. The assessment of the unique and combined contributions of educational approach and disability severity on both forms of parental stress scores may be an important addition to the literature.
Independent/Predictor Variables
There were two between-subjects predictor variables: type of educational approach and severity of the child’s disability. The categorical independent variable, type of
educational approach had two levels, homeschool educational approach or public education special needs approach. Individuals were placed in one level based on their response to a question asking them to indicate the schooling approach currently used. No attempts were made to determine aspects about the homeschooling approach such as curriculum
between homeschooling and public special education. The participants’ level was entered into a regression equation to determine whether schooling approach predicted parental emotional stress, in general and as related to schooling specifically. It was important to assess differences between these two educational approaches on both types of parental stress (overall stress and stress exacerbated by schooling) in a population of students with a
diagnosed disability because information on this comparison may impact future educational practices.
The predictor variable, severity of child’s disability, was measured by the Cognitive Processing Inventory, a continuous variable with a range of total severity scores between 50 and 250. Scores on the inventory were determined for each participant and their predictive relationship to parental emotional stress were also determined using regression analysis. Although some researchers purported that disability severity was related to parental stress, empirical investigations on the relationships among disability severity, parental stress, and educational approaches have yet to be conducted.
Data Collection
Following the approval of the Walden University Institutional Review Board, an initial e-mail or a mailed letter was sent to the appropriate support group organizations (identified via Google search). The letter explained the dissertation project and requested that the organization post information about the study. Contact information for the researcher was also included in the initial communication (see Appendix G for letter and Appendix H for study posting information). Interested parents used the contact
introductory letter explained the purpose of the study and that the study was completely voluntary and anonymous, that the participants could quit at any time, the time needed for completing the questionnaires, and the benefits/risks of the study. The introductory letter also contained a link to the study being hosted by Survey Monkey. Informed consent was assumed when the participant opened the survey link and submitted responses to the survey. Given that no identifying information was requested on the survey, the accuracy of the demographic data provided could not be verified.
All survey responses were kept confidential and Survey Monkey uses the SSL (Secure Sockets Layer), which is a way of transmitting private information on the Internet. The SSL creates a safe connection between a user and their server, encrypting the information transmitted through the web page, keeping all data safe. Moreover, Survey Monkey ensures that the researcher is the owner of the data collected and the only one with access to survey data. Survey Monkey requires users to create a unique
password and username, and the surveys appear on secured areas of Survey Monkey with Secure Sockets Layer technology, which protects user information via server
authentication and data encryption.
All data are being kept private and password protected and will remain in my custody. These precautions ensure data cannot be used by anyone else. All participants were redirected after the surveys were completed and a thank-you note (see Appendix I) was automatically sent. In the event that a parent felt emotionally stressed after
answering the questions, a referral source was provided in the thank-you notes and my information was made available again (see Appendix J). All study participants were
informed (via study invitation and at the conclusion of the online survey) that the aggregated study results would be made available to them. In order to receive the study results, interested participants were asked to provide an e-mail address. I collected the e- mail addresses and forwarded the study results to interested participants following approval of the dissertation.
Data Analysis
Following data collection, the survey responses were downloaded into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, PASW Statistics 18. Descriptive and inferential data analyses were conducted. Descriptive analyses included ranges, means, and standard deviations of all dependent variables and demographic variables. Inferential analysis included two multiple regression analyses, with the dependent/criterion variable, parental stress levels (as measured by the FICD-20 and then as measured by the ESS) and the two predictor variables educational method (as indicated by response on the
demographic questionnaire) and severity of a disability (as assessed by the CPI). Multiple regression analysis is most often used with continuous predictor
variables, even though a categorical variable can also be used. In the current study both a continuous predictor variable (childhood disability severity) and a categorical predictor variable (educational approaches) were evaluated, making multiple regression an appropriate evaluation technique and preferable to analysis of variance because this approach requires only categorical independent variables. The main advantage of using a simple/direct multiple regression analysis in the present study was that this approach determined whether one of the study predictors was responsible for predicting more of
the variance than the other by calculating the beta values for each predictor (Gravetter &